Enterprise Insight

Alistair Carmichael: To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry which of the five places selected for Enterprise Insight's local campaign hubs is not in the lowest 20 per cent. for deprivation.

Margaret Hodge: The local campaign hub, which has been selected and is not in the worst 20 per cent. for deprivation is Lowestoft. It ranks 113th out of 354 local authorities in terms of deprivation. However, there are fewer VAT registrations in Lowestoft than in any other area covered by the local campaign hubs, except for Redcar.
	Lowestoft was chosen as a hub to build upon existing enthusiasm for positive change in enterprise among the key local organisations that have had successful influence elsewhere.
	The hub manager will work closely with these organisations, which include Enterprise Lowestoft, North Waveney Enterprise Service, Shell UK and East of England Development Agency, to help make the hub a success.

Aid: Conditionality

Andrew Pelling: To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what action has been taken since the publication of Partnerships for poverty reduction: rethinking conditionality to persuade the International Bank of Reconstruction and Development and the International Monetary Fund to change practice on conditionality.

Gareth Thomas: At the last replenishment of the International Development Association (IDA), the UK agreed to provide an additional £100 million if the World Bank made progress on harmonisation and conditionality. The first £50 million was linked to the bank carrying out a thorough review of its practice and current thinking on conditionality. In September 2005 the bank's governors endorsed this review, whose five new good practice principles for the use of conditions accord well with the principles underlying the UK policy on conditionality.
	Bank management agreed to report to the board on implementation after the first year. The first progress report did not provide sufficient information. In September 2006, we told the bank that we would withhold our second contribution of £50 million until we saw clear evidence that the principles were being applied. President Wolfowitz agreed to produce a fuller report, which was discussed by the bank's board on 5 December. In our view, this thorough and candid report provided the evidence that the bank has made the satisfactory progress on conditionality that is required to release the second £50 million contribution.
	The report reiterates bank management's strong commitment to make further improvements in its use of conditionality. Its several recommendations include:
	avoiding conditions on sensitive policy areas if government ownership is uncertain or the political environment is fragile;
	early and more proactive disclosure of the bank's analytic work;
	reducing the number of benchmarks;
	specifying the progress expected so that an assessment can be made of the impact of the programme on the poor and the bank's contribution to that programme.
	Benchmarks set out the steps that a government will take in implementing their policies and plans. They are not equivalent to conditions and do not affect disbursement. However, there is much misunderstanding and misinformation surround them. Feedback from developing country governments suggests that they do not always distinguish between benchmarks and conditions. Part of the bank's response should therefore be to ensure greater understanding of the nature and purpose of benchmarks.
	Further progress on conditionality will be a central consideration in our funding of the next replenishment of IDA, which begins in March. We asked the Bank to produce their next report on conditionality later this year and to consult with developing country governments in order to hear their views on how things are changing.
	The International Monetary Fund (IMF) has a set of conditionality guidelines that are aligned with the principles adopted by the Bank. The IMF's most recent internal review demonstrated an improved focus of conditions within its area of core competence on macroeconomics. In addition a detailed report by the Fund's Independent Evaluation Office is currently being finalised. This will examine the IMF's use of conditions in areas such as privatisation and trade liberalisation.

Aid: Conditionality

Andrew Pelling: To ask the Secretary of State for International Development to which countries he has considered  (a) reducing and  (b) interrupting UK aid because of (i) movement away from agreed poverty reduction objectives or outcomes, (ii) violation of human rights and (iii) risk of misuse of funds in each year since 2005.

Hilary Benn: The provision of direct development support by DFID to a partner government is dependent on a number of conditions, including commitment to poverty reduction, human rights and accountability. Compliance with these conditions is assessed regularly.
	However, DFID endeavours not to let the poor suffer by reducing our development assistance as a consequence of their governments' political choices or shortcomings. We will not put money directly through government systems in countries where we have concerns about accountability or governance. We will, however, stay engaged in such countries where we believe our assistance can have a positive impact on poverty reduction. In these instances we will channel funds through NGOs or other development agencies instead.
	There have been a number of cases since 2005 where events have caused DFID to review its bilateral engagement in certain countries.
	In the case of Uzbekistan, where there were serious concerns about human rights, we took the view that our small programme was unlikely to have significant impact on poverty reduction in the current political environment. We therefore closed the bilateral programme in January 2006, but continue to support a Central Asia regional programme on HIV and AIDS that includes Uzbekistan. We also support the continued engagement there of multilateral agencies.
	In Rwanda DFID considered interrupting UK aid at the beginning of 2005. This was a consequence of threats by the Government of Rwanda to send troops into the Democratic Republic of Congo to attack the bases of hostile militia. After careful monitoring and assessment indicated that such attacks had not occurred, UK aid was provided without any reduction in 2005.
	In several other cases we have not reduced funding but delayed it, chosen not to proceed with planned increases, or altered the channel through which we support poverty reduction.
	Ethiopia—In June 2005 DFID put on hold a proposed increase in direct budget support from £30 million to £50 million in the light of human rights abuses, which occurred following the general election. In November the same year, we suspended all direct budget support to Ethiopia. DFID did not reduce the overall levels of aid to Ethiopia and has developed alternative programmes for delivering assistance to poor people.
	Uganda—Of £50 million allocated by DFID as direct budget support to the Government of Uganda in the Ugandan financial year 2005-06, £15 million was not disbursed, following concerns about delays in political transition, the continuation of state financing for the ruling party, events surrounding the arrest and trial of the leader of the main opposition party, and a significant overrun in public administration expenditure. The £15 million was reallocated as humanitarian assistance in conflict affected areas of northern Uganda. Of the £35 million balance, £5 million was initially held back and linked to the conduct of multi-party elections; this sum was subsequently disbursed following the holding of these elections.
	In the Ugandan financial year 2006-07, DFID's direct budget support remained at £35 million due to governance and public expenditure concerns, rather than increase to a potential £55 million previously indicated to the Government of Uganda. Again, overall levels of UK aid were not affected.
	Sierra Leone—in 2006, DFID withheld £2.5 million out of a £15 million allocation of direct budget support (£10 million baseline and £5 million performance-linked) following weaker than expected progress against mutually agreed benchmarks. The funds remained within the DFID programme for Sierra Leone and were reallocated as support to the election process.
	Nepal—In February 2005 following King Gyanendra's declaration of a State of Emergency and imposition of direct rule, I agreed new criteria for deciding on our aid programme in Nepal. In March 2005, projects that had been supporting the Police, Prime Minister's Office and Prison Service as part of the Enabling State programme were stopped on effectiveness grounds. All other parts of the Nepal programme continued and funding for 2005-06 was maintained at 2004-05 levels.
	It was decided that support through Government systems would continue in health and education, but individual payments would require ministerial scrutiny to reflect the high level of risk. As a result, the way funding was given to the Rural Access programme and Livelihoods and Forestry programme was revised and payments were made through direct support to these programmes rather than financial aid through the Government of Nepal's budget.
	We welcome the signing of the Comprehensive Peace Agreement on 21 November by the Seven Party Alliance Government and the Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist) and the subsequent Agreement on the monitoring of Arms and Armies on 28 November. The agreements are a major step forward and the UK stands ready to help support implementation. DFID is reviewing its strategy and programme in the light of recent developments to ensure that we continue to respond effectively to the changed political and conflict environment.
	Palestinian Territories—Following the election of Hamas in January 2006 the Quartet (US, EU, UN and Russia) set out three principles for the new Palestinian Government: renouncing violence, recognising Israel's right to exist and signing up to previous peace agreements. As a result of Hamas's failure to comply with these principles the UK, alongside most of the international community, withdrew direct financial and technical assistance to the Palestinian Authority.
	DFID has not, however, stopped or reduced its support to the Palestinians, but is disbursing funds in a different way. This includes a commitment of up to £12 million channelled to the EU-led Temporary International Mechanism (TIM). This provides aid directly to the Palestinian people to help meet their basic needs in areas such as health. DFID has also provided £15 million this year for Palestinian refugees across the Middle East, through the United Nations Relief and Works Agency. DFID is satisfied with the arrangements put in place to ensure its current contributions to the TIM and previous budget support contributions to the World Bank-managed reform trust fund are used for the purposes intended.
	Further information on programmes where we have reduced or interrupted our development assistance can be found in table 6a of DFID's departmental report 2006, (please note this only covers the period between April and December 2005), a copy of which is available in the library and on DFID's website at the following address;
	http://www.dfid.gov.uk/pubs/files/departmental-report/2006/default.asp

Democratic Republic of the Congo

Fiona Mactaggart: To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if he will review whether the arrest of former presidential candidate Marie-Thérèse Nlandu should lead to changes in the aid programme to the Democratic Republic of Congo; and if he will make a statement.

Hilary Benn: The British ambassador in Kinshasa has spoken to the Interior Minister of the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) and advisers to President Kabila on several occasions regarding the detention of Marie Therese Nlandu. We and European partners raised our concerns that Mme Nlandu's human rights, particularly her access to legal representation, were not being respected. The British embassy in Kinshasa continues to monitor the situation closely.
	The UK's development programme is focused on improving the lives of poor people in DRC and preventing a return to the violence that has blighted progress there. About half of our £62 million programme is spent on meeting urgent humanitarian needs. The other half is used to promote longer term development, for example, we have supported distribution of anti-malaria bednets to protect one million people and supported mobile courts to deliver justice in some areas unserved for many years. It is important that this DFID support, including reform of the judiciary, continues.

Somalia

Andrew Rosindell: To ask the Secretary of State for International Development how much financial aid his Department gave to Somalia in the financial year 2005-06.

Hilary Benn: DFID bilateral aid to Somalia in the fiscal year 2005-06 was £18.75 million. More than 80 per cent. of that was humanitarian assistance in response to the drought in the region and other needs. The remainder went on education, health and promoting improved governance and the rule of law—all things that Somalia desperately needs.
	£13,000 was in the form of other financial aid which relates to pensions payments where the UK has take over liabilities from the Somali authorities. None of these funds were provided directly to the transitional federal institutions. Somalia has been without a recognised central government since 1991.
	For statistical reporting purposes, the term financial aid covers poverty reduction budget support and other projects and programmes. A full breakdown of 'Bilateral Aid for Somalia' is published in Table 12.1 of Statistics on International Development 2001/02-2005/06, a copy of which is available in the Library.

Joint Strike Fighter

Ben Wallace: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence pursuant to the written ministerial statement of 12 December 2006, on the Joint Strike Fighter (JSF), 
	(1)  if the Government will make it a condition of purchasing JSF that the purchased aircraft must be assembled and checked out in the UK;
	(2)  whether the assurances given by the US on technology transfer are sufficient to allow assembling and final check out of the JSF aircraft to take place in the United Kingdom to the same level as will be the case for the US Tier 1 partners in the programme.

Adam Ingram: holding answer 18 December 2006
	The Government have received assurances on technology transfer for Joint Strike Fighter (JSF), that would provide for a final assembly and check-out (FACO) facility for JSF in the UK. However, we have not yet decided whether to invest in a UK-based FACO facility. We are considering all aspects of the case, including costs and industrial skills. Should we decide to invest in such a facility, we shall discuss appropriate arrangements with JSF partners.
	The UK will remain the only 'level 1' partner in the System Development and Demonstration phase of the JSF programme until that phase's conclusion in 2013. The next phase, Production, Sustainment and Follow-on Development, of which the Memorandum of Understanding signed on 12 December sets the framework, does not have any such 'tier' structure. The Memorandum of Understanding signed on 12 December, which sets the framework for PSFD, is a multilateral document common to all participants. The UK's specific requirements, including the assurances on technology transfer, are listed in a classified bilateral annexe.

Met Office/Hydrographic Office

James Arbuthnot: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether he plans to ask the  (a) Hydrographic Office and  (b) Meteorological Office to implement the recommendations in the Office of Fair Trading's recent market study of public sector information; and if he will make a statement.

Derek Twigg: holding answer 18 December 2006
	The Government have until March to consider its response to the Office of Fair Trading's Market Study of public sector information. The DTI is responsible for co-ordinating the preparation of the agreed Government response, including MOD, and my officials will liaise with the DTI during the consultation process. Following that response both the UK Hydrographic Office (UKHO) and the Met Office will of course fully implement any newly agreed policy, as appropriate.

Nuclear Deterrent

Vincent Cable: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how each of the options outlined in the White Paper The Future of the United Kingdom's nuclear deterrent was tested for viability.

Des Browne: The process by which the options were assessed is described in detail in section 5 and annex B of the White Paper "The Future of the United Kingdom's Nuclear Deterrent" (Cm 6994), published on 4 December 2006. Copies of the White Paper are available in the Library of the House.

Nuclear Deterrent

Vincent Cable: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what factors determined  (a) the expected operating cost of the Trident replacement cited in the White Paper The future of the United Kingdom's nuclear deterrent and  (b) the costs of Trident cited in 1994; and if he will make a statement.

Des Browne: A number of factors determined the estimate (set out in paragraph 5-14 of the White Paper: "The Future of the United Kingdom's Nuclear Deterrent" (Cm 6994), published on 4 December) of the expected in-service costs of the UK nuclear deterrent once a new fleet of SSBNs comes into service. The estimate drew on: projections based on the actual and planned future maintenance and operating costs of the current system, including manpower costs; assessments of in-service costs of system components; studies of potential infrastructure and disposal costs; projected costs of the Atomic Weapons Establishment; and an assessment of the impact of risk.
	The estimate of the lifetime operating costs of Trident provided by the MOD to the House of Commons Defence Committee in 1993, shortly before the first of the Vanguard class submarines, HMS Vanguard, entered operational service, included projections for: manpower and related costs of the crews of the submarines and associated civilian staff; the costs of refits of the submarines over the lifetime of the force; the costs of stores and stores personnel and transport; a share of the running costs of the Clyde submarine base; the costs of the Atomic Weapons Establishment; in-service support of the strategic weapons system and the submarine; and decommissioning and disposal of the submarines.

GDP

Alan Milburn: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what gross domestic product per capita was in each local authority area in  (a) 1979,  (b) 1992,  (c) 1997 and  (d) the latest year for which figures are available.

John Healey: The information requested falls within the responsibility of the National Statistician, who has been asked to reply.
	 Letter from Karen Dunnell, dated 9 January 2007:
	As National Statistician I have been asked to reply to your recent question about Gross Domestic Product (GDP) per capita in each local authority area in 1919, 1992, 1997 and the latest year for which figures are available. (108167)
	Office for National Statistics currently publishes regional Gross Value Added (GVA) rather than regional GDP. These data are published in Nomenclature of Units for Territorial Statistics (NUTS) regions and the lowest breakdown of geography for which data are published is the NUTS3 level. These data run from 1995 to 2004 and can be accessed in the following link:
	http://www.statistics.gov.uk/statbase/Product.asp?vlnk=14650
	GDP per capita data prior to 1995 were published biennially at the county level. These data were last published in 1998. The attached table shows GDP per capita for counties for the biennial period 1977-1995.
	Both data-sets are at current prices, therefore the effects of inflation are not taken into account.
	
		
			  Gross Domestic Product by county at factor cost: current prices 
			  Gross Domestic Product per head (£) 
			   1977  1979  1981  1984  1987  1989  1991  1993  1995 
			  United Kingdom( 1) 2,256 2,955 3,626 4,611 6,160 7,585 8,481 9,282 10,199 
			   
			  North East 2,134 2,684 3,436 4,119 5,280 6,468 7,229 7,963 8,683 
			 Cleveland 2,484 3,098 3,794 4,531 5,688 7,217 7,581 8,262 9,174 
			 Durham 1,816 2,364 3,228 3,553 4,787 6,062 6,618 7,217 8,001 
			 Northumberland 1,795 2,216 3,153 3,918 4,860 6,062 6,365 7,143 8,294 
			 Tyne and Wear 2,215 2,768 3,445 4,268 5,451 6,423 7,617 8,436 8,913 
			   
			  North West (GOR) and Merseyside 2,181 2,841 3,525 4,414 5,847 7,045 7,720 8,458 9,277 
			   
			  North West (GOR) 2,200 2,863 3,555 4,539 6,122 7,376 8,094 8,827 9,737 
			 Cheshire 2,443 3,136 3,832 4,975 6,630 8,166 8,781 10,195 11,403 
			 Cumbria 2,172 2,751 3,739 4,978 7,320 8,272 9,199 9,682 10,650 
			 Greater Manchester 2,238 2,939 3,554 4,519 6,081 7,101 7,801 8,479 9,279 
			 Lancashire 1,976 2,573 3,302 4,126 5,430 7,025 7,774 8,228 9,110 
			 Merseyside 2,113 2,763 3,412 3,965 4,834 5,812 6,317 7,060 7,513 
			   
			  Yorkshire and the Humber 2,145 2,749 3,393 4,272 5,764 6,962 7,764 8,348 9,300 
			 Humberside 2,149 2,762 3,228 4,281 5,978 7,385 8,055 8,699 9,587 
			 North Yorkshire 2,019 2,600 3,387 4,876 6,141 7,348 8,584 9,481 10,242 
			 South Yorkshire 2,197 2.828 3.448 3,905 5,143 6,106 6,864 7,077 7,719 
			 West Yorkshire 2,152 2,741 3,429 4,299 5,939 7,189 7,922 8,602 9,832 
			   
			  East Midlands 2,189 2,842 3,474 4,541 6,062 7,449 8,273 8,978 9,791 
			 Derbyshire 2,143 2,711 3,305 4,264 5,579 6,866 7,673 8,114 9,183 
			 Leicestershire 2,217 2,939 3,710 4,918 6,742 8,168 8,835 9,687 10,791 
			 Lincolnshire 2,120 2,673 3,235 4,278 5,351 6,740 7,757 8,651 9,288 
			 Northamptonshire 2,146 2,771 3,157 4,689 6,351 7,957 8,711 9,855 10,642 
			 Nottinghamshire 2,267 3,011 3,735 4,534 6,155 7,477 8,384 8,837 9,265 
			   
			  West Midlands 2,198 2,844 3,322 4,191 5,630 7,009 7,861 8,615 9,567 
			 Hereford and Worcestershire 1,957 2,493 2,844 3,925 5,153 6,366 7,311 8,137 9,823 
			 Shropshire 1,920 2,501 2,838 3,946 5,086 6,557 7,643 8,528 9,826 
			 Staffordshire 1,957 2,555 3,102 4,010 5,372 6,774 7,124 7,474 8,374 
			 Warwickshire 1,670 2,339 3,181 3,981 5,847 7,404 8,422 9,004 10,288 
			 West Midlands (Met. county) 2,469 3,171 3,628 4,400 5,896 7,265 8,228 9,139 9,800 
			   
			  Eastern 2,168 2,841 3,371 4,522 5,957 7,463 8,180 81891 9,773 
			 Bedfordshire 2,266 2,913 3,361 4,625 6,091 7,977 8,552 9,143 9,936 
			 Cambridgeshire 2,310 3,004 3,521 5,424 6,905 8,492 9,172 10,243 11,864 
			 Essex 1,941 2,711 3,149 3,914 5,220 6,589 7,092 7,769 8,728 
			 Hertfordshire 2,427 3,109 3,803 4,953 6,616 6,079 8,937 9,573 10,297 
			 Norfolk 2,109 2,673 3,266 4,361 5,773 7,227 8,063 8,704 9,065 
			 Suffolk 2,155 2,704 3,211 4,526 5,859 7,430 8,423 9,128 9,963 
			   
			  London 3,165 4,346 5,482 6,530 8,975 11,017 12,162 13,432 14,250 
			   
			  South East (GOR) 2,055 2,761 3,358 4,515 6,046 7,663 8,672 9,545 10,602 
			 Berkshire 2,611 3,492 3,953 5,388 7,464 9,476 11,153 12,757 13,644 
			 Buckinghamshire 2,020 2,684 3,088 4,954 6,534 6,595 9,621 10,479 11,933 
			 East Sussex 1,634 2,212 2,812 3,726 4,742 5,946 6,463 6,981 7,709 
			 Hampshire 2,236 3,121 3,778 4,825 6,226 7,567 8,758 9,569 10,852 
			 Isle of Wight 1,729 2,231 2,580 3,712 4,841 5,673 6,256 6,269 7,002 
			 Kent 1,984 2,584 3,156 4,002 5,419 6,925 7,811 8,181 9,441 
			 Oxfordshire 2,122 2,745 3,213 4,755 6,256 6,002 9,091 10,510 11,097 
			 Surrey 1,875 2,602 3,479 4,574 6,272 6,207 9,261 10,467 11,046 
			 West Sussex 1,969 2,567 3,116 4,291 6,102 7,756 8,312 9,180 10,505 
			   
			  South West 2,078 2,693 3,266 4,387 5,625 7,170 8,074 8,837 9,792 
			 Avon 2,307 3,001 3,675 4,814 6,437 7,857 8,983 9,786 10,790 
			 Cornwall 1,719 2,191 2,665 3,512 4,616 5,747 6,087 6,733 7,511 
			 Devon 1,938 2,496 3,096 4,064 5,112 6,483 7,344 8,128 6,966 
			 Dorset 1,992 2,592 2,948 4,162 5,656 6,916 7,877 8,345 9,207 
			 Gloucestershire 2,231 2,996 3,629 4,780 6,556 7,883 8,663 9,489 10,623 
			 Somerset 2,027 2,558 3,194 4,346 5,807 7,217 7,711 8,452 9,349 
			 Wiltshire 2,209 2,847 3,451 4,865 6,562 6,031 9,487 10,519 11,730 
			   
			  Wales 1,966 2,517 3,045 3,966 5,222 6,562 7,234 7,676 6,601 
			 Clwyd 1,748 2,227 2,577 3,994 5,654 7,055 7,891 8,349 9,579 
			 Dyfed and Powys 1,914 2,644 2,992 3,901 4,927 5,879 6,441 7,051 7,384 
			 Gwent 1,947 2,443 2,965 3,926 5,367 6,659 7,198 7,960 6,979 
			 Gwynedd 1,802 2,243 2,795 3,611 4,979 6,066 6,591 6,883 7,772 
			 Mid Glamorgan 1,734 2,244 2,806 3,339 4,561 5,712 5,871 5,770 6,864 
			 South Glamorgan 2,426 3,029 3,704 5,236 6,622 6,166 9,518 10,502 11,649 
			 West Glamorgan 2,232 2,764 3,516 3,831 5,345 6,544 7,438 7,536 8,247 
			   
			  Scotland 2,190 2,802 3,589 4,440 5,826 7,113 8,269 9,148 10,224 
			 Borders 2,274 2,684 3,316 3,902 5,466 6,079 6,949 7,870 9,003 
			 Central 2,255 3,054 3,797 4,033 5,351 6,760 7,329 7,880 9,265 
			 Dumfries and Galloway 2,210 2,671 2,496 4,248 5,337 6,556 7,513 8,776 9,555 
			 Fife 2,249 2,836 3,615 4,368 5,307 6,375 7,333 7,497 8,314 
			 Grampian 2,489 3,269 4,206 6,026 7,338 9,059 11,952 12,982 13,566 
			 Highlands and Islands 2,222 2,738 3,595 4,268 5,504 6,098 7,529 7,742 8,298 
			 Lothian 2,249 3,008 3,839 4,994 6,766 8,451 9,637 11,367 12,656 
			 Strathclyde 2,099 2,662 3,403 4,083 5,472 6,670 7,549 8,254 9,483 
			 Tayside 2,150 2,630 3,367 4,213 5,504 6,736 7,676 8,781 9,611 
			   
			  Northern Ireland 1,805 2,335 2,813 3,702 4,784 5,832 6,930 7,620 8,423 
			 (1) Excluding the Continental Shelf region and the statistical discrepancy of the income based measure  Note: Data published in January 1998 and consistent with National Accounts Blue Book 1997

British Waterways

Charlotte Atkins: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what meetings  (a) he and  (b) his Ministers have held with boating organisations since the announcement of budget reductions to British Waterways in 2006-07.

Barry Gardiner: holding answer 5 December 2006
	I refer my hon. Friend to the reply given to her on 11 December 2006,  Official Report, column 731W. This details meetings the Secretary of State has had with British Waterways. The Secretary of State has not met with any boating organisations. Lord Rooker met the chair of the Inland Waterways Association informally on 26 November.
	I met with British Waterways on 19 July and 27 November 2006, the Broads Authority on 16 March and the 18 September 2006. I also met with the Waterways Trust on 26 April 2006. The Waterways all Party Parliamentary Group on 12 December 2006.

Fisheries

Nigel Waterson: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what assessment he has made of the effectiveness of the Securing the Benefits initiative in tackling fisheries management since June 2005.

Ben Bradshaw: Good progress has been made since DEFRA and the devolved administrations published "Securing the Benefits" in response to the Prime Minister's Strategy Unit landmark report, "Net Benefits". In particular, in terms of modernisation of fisheries management, we have achieved the following results:
	(i) We have appointed a Regional Fisheries Manager for South West England to pilot the benefits of the role.
	(ii) We have begun work to change the quota management system in the UK. We are developing options for change and will soon be consulting on these.
	(iii) We have set up a Marine Fisheries Science Advisory Group.
	(iv) We have continued to fund the Fisheries Science Partnership and, with industry involvement, identified projects for 2006-07 including work on North East coast crabs and lobsters, North Sea whiting and Eastern Channel cod.
	(v) We have set up a new fund for science projects.
	(vi) We have put in place registration of buyers and sellers of fish to strengthen the assurance that all fish are caught and landed in compliance with the relevant fisheries legislation.
	(vii) We have appointed regional advisers to help with applications for grants under the Financial Instrument for Fisheries Guidance.
	(viii) We have announced that modernised Sea Fisheries Committees (SFCs) will be given new powers, through the Marine Bill, to deliver improved management of fish stocks and the marine environment.
	(ix) We have announced an increased minimum landing size for bass which will offer greater protection to the stock while providing more and larger bass for commercial fishermen and anglers.
	Further information on the progress that has been made over the last year is contained in DEFRA's progress report which was published as a supplement to "Fishing Focus" in October 2006 on the DEFRA website at:
	http://www.defra.gov.uk/fish/pdf/fishfocus1006supp.pdf.

Airport Security

Paul Rowen: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he expects to make available a synopsis of the Boys Smith report on airport security.

Gillian Merron: The Secretary of State made a written statement, 20 July 2006, confirming that the content of the report is not appropriate for public consumption and will not therefore be placed in the Library.
	A further statement will be made in due course.

FV Gaul

Sandra Gidley: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how the four formal safety recommendations arising from the FV Gaul Re-opened Formal Investigation have been implemented; and what the date of implementation was of each.

Stephen Ladyman: The Report of the re-opened formal investigation into the loss of the FV Gaul made four recommendations for consultation with the fishing industry. In putting these recommendations forward, the Wreck Commissioner was aware that they were likely to have been superseded by improvements in design and working practices that had evolved over the 30 years since the loss of the FV Gaul. Nevertheless, he considered that, because of their fundamental importance to the safety of fishing vessels, they should be reviewed again.
	The recommendations stated that:
	permanent openings into critical internal spaces of a vessel, that could be submerged periodically and that are required to be kept open for intermittent purposes during fishing operations can usually be avoided by design. Such openings that do exist should have effective and, ideally passive or automatic means of closure;
	automatic pumping arrangements together with water level alarms should be fitted to any space which may be vulnerable to flooding which would significantly reduce the vessel's stability;
	warning lights should be installed in the wheelhouse to indicate any openings, watertight doors or hatches which remain open.
	The issues covered by these recommendations were initially addressed by the Fishing Vessels (Safety Provisions) Rules 1975, which came into force in 1 May 1975. For vessels built on or after 1 January 1999, further safety requirements were introduced by the Fishing Vessels (EC Directive on Harmonised Safety Regime) Regulations 1999, which came into force on 1 December 1999.
	The final recommendation was that a CCTV camera, with a monitor on the bridge, should be fitted to allow the officer of the watch to monitor continually any large working spaces that are vulnerable to flooding and which may be left unattended for relatively long periods of time.
	The Fishing Vessels (EC Directive on Harmonised Safety Regime) Regulations 1999 require all vessels to be fitted with an audio and visual alarm (not necessarily a CCTV camera). It is considered that this requirement ensures an equivalent level of protection against flooding of the spaces mentioned in the recommendation.
	Since the publication of the report on the FV Gaul in 2004, the Department's Fishing Industry Safety Group (FISG), which includes representatives of the fishing industry, has been conducting-a review of all Rules and Regulations applicable to vessels of 24m registered length and over. This review will consolidate, update and enhance the current legislation into one Code of Practice, in line with Better Regulation principles.
	The review is expected to be completed in the spring and the Maritime and Coastguard Agency (MCA) will then undertake a consultation exercise on behalf of FISG. The intention is that the new Code will come into force in winter 2007-08, and will also take account of the four recommendations made in the FV Gaul report.

Haulier Fuel Consumption

Stephen Hammond: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what the estimated consumption of fuel by  (a) UK hauliers and  (b) foreign registered hauliers on UK roads was in the last year for which figures are available.

Stephen Ladyman: 9.2 million tonnes of UK diesel were consumed by heavy goods vehicles (HGVs) in 2005, which includes fuel purchased in the UK but used outside it, but does not include fuel purchased outside the UK. It is not possible to break this figure down into consumption by domestic and foreign HGVs.
	This figure is published in table 3.1 of "Transport Statistics Great Britain: 2006". The publication is available in the Libraries of the House and on the Department for Transport's website at the following link:
	http://www.dft.gov.uk/stellent/groups/dft_transstats/documents/divisionhomepage/031571.hcsp

Legal Advice

David Davies: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how much was spent by the Department on external legal advice in each of the past five years.

Gillian Merron: The Department was formed on May 2002. In each of the past four years the Department for Transport has spent the following on external legal advice:
	
		
			   £ 
			 2002-03 307,719.00 
			 2003-04 1,100,701.29 
			 2004-05 1,857,275.91 
			 2005-06 910,430.50 
			  Notes: 1. The Driving Standards Agency cannot answer this question without reaching the disproportionate cost threshold. 2. The Vehicle Certification Agency has a nil return within UK In respect of its overseas offices it is de-minimus (<£2,000 pa) over the last four years. A further breakdown could be obtained only at disproportionate cost. 3. It is not possible for Highways Agency to reply to this question without incurring disproportionate cost as individual case files would need to be examined to ascertain the information requested. The agency's reporting system does not differentiate between costs for legal advice and other legal services such as conveyancing, which may or may not include providing legal advice. In addition, in many cases, settlements are paid to claimants via the agency's legal representative such as Treasury Solicitor, and these amounts are also not differentiated in the accounting system and therefore cannot be ascertained without incurring disproportionate cost. Further, legal advice is also provided by some of the consultancies employed by the agency, the costs of this legal advice can not be differentiated from costs of other services provided.

Overseas Lorries

Stephen Hammond: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what estimate he has made of the number of overseas registered lorries using the UK road system in each of the last five years.

Stephen Ladyman: Annual figures for the number of foreign registered HGVs travelling from GB to mainland Europe are published in section 3, table 3.3 of "Road Freight Statistics: 2005".
	This is available on the Department for Transport's website at http://www.dft.gov.uk/stellent/groups/dft_transstats/documents/page/dft_transstats_611935.hcsp and is also available in hard copy from the Libraries of the House.

Railways

James Arbuthnot: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many passengers used  (a) Bentley,  (b) Fleet,  (c) Hook,  (d) Winchfield and  (e) Liphook railway stations in 2005-06; how many passengers he expects to use each station in each of the next 10 years; and what plans he has to change capacity at these stations.

Tom Harris: The Department does not have definitive figures of passenger use, however, the following figures for passenger use of the listed stations have been derived from the LENNON system in line with industry practice.
	
		
			  Station  Number 
			 Bentley 93,435 
			 Fleet 1,370,363 
			 Hook 516,508 
			 Winchfield 286,402 
			 Liphook 431,499 
		
	
	With regards to future usage, the Network Rail Route Utilisation Strategy assumed a growth on 20 per cent. over 10 years. The Department in letting the new South Western franchise asked bidders to. develop innovative means to manage the expected increase in capacity.

Road Traffic Accidents

Alistair Carmichael: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport in how many and what proportion of road traffic accidents exceeding the speed limit was given as a contributory factor to the incident in each of the last five years; and how many of these accidents resulted in a fatality.

Stephen Ladyman: The information requested for 2005 has been published by the Department on its website in table 6 of the article 'Contributory factors to road accidents'. This article can be found at the following web address:
	http://www.dft.gov.uk/stellent/groups/dft_transstats/documents/downloadable/dft_transstats_612594.pdf
	Copy of the article is also available in the Libraries of the House. Data for earlier years are not available.

Roads

Paul Rowen: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how much was spent on road  (a) building and  (b) maintenance in each year since 1997.

Stephen Ladyman: holding answer 8 January 2007
	Information on public (central and local government) and private funding for transport infrastructure in Great Britain is published in Table 1.14 of "Transport Statistics Great Britain (TSGB)", which is available on the Department for Transport's website (www.dft.gov.uk) and is available in the Libraries of the House. These figures cover both new construction and structural maintenance, but the available expenditure data does not enable new road construction to be identified as a separate category.
	Information on expenditure on road maintenance for England and Wales is available from Tables 8.2 and 8.3 of the "National Road Maintenance Condition Survey 2005", also available on the Department for Transport's website (www.dft.gov.uk) and the Libraries. Data for Scotland are published in Table 11.2 and 11.3 "Scottish Transport Statistics 2006 Edition" by the Scottish Executive, available on www.scotland.gov.uk. These sources identify expenditure on structural maintenance, but overlaps in definition mean that these sources can not be combined with the investment data from Table 1.14 to estimate total expenditure on road building and maintenance.

Transport

Chris Grayling: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what major transport projects have been approved in the last 12 months, broken down by parliamentary constituency.

Gillian Merron: A table has been placed in the Libraries of the House.

Apprenticeships

Brian Jenkins: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many people in Tamworth constituency applied for  (a) apprenticeships and  (b) post-16 vocational courses in each of the last six years.

Bill Rammell: Data on the number of applications to apprenticeships and post-16 vocational courses more generally is not held centrally.

Children in Care

Annette Brooke: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many children were taken into local authority care during the Christmas/winter school holidays in England in each year since 1997; and if he will make a statement.

Parmjit Dhanda: Information on the number of children who have been taken into care under an interim or full care order, emergency protection order, under police protection or under a child assessment between 21 December and 5 January inclusive in England in each year since 1997, is shown in the following table.
	
		
			  Table 1: number of children who have been taken into care during the Christmas/winter school holidays for the years 1997 to 2006( 1,2,3) —England 
			   Number 
			   Children taken into care during the Christmas/winter school holidays 
			 1997(4) 140 
			 1998(5) 190 
			 1999(5) 250 
			 2000(5) 260 
			 2001(5) 200 
			 2002(5) 200 
			 2003(5) 190 
			 2004(4) 210 
			 2005(4) 220 
			 2006(4) 230 
			 (1) Children who have been taken into care between 21 December until 5 January inclusive. (2) Children who have been taken into care under an interim or full care order, emergency protection order, under police protection or under a child assessment order. (3) Figures exclude children looked after under an agreed series of short term placements. (4) Figures are derived from the SSDA903 system which collected information on all looked after children in 1996/97 and since 2003/04. (5) Figures are derived from the SSDA903 which collected information from a one third sample survey of all looked after children between 1997/98 and 2002/03.

Dartington College of Art

Anthony Steen: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what assessment he has made of the  (a) performance and  (b) impact of Dartington College of Art.

Bill Rammell: holding answer 14 December 2006
	The Government do not currently make formal assessments of the performance or impact of individual higher education providers but we are committed to giving prospective students more information on such issues as teaching through the National Student Satisfaction survey. The most recent data for 2006 suggests that the majority of students at Dartington were satisfied with the quality of the teaching and learning they experienced.

Dual Placements

Anne Main: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many school-aged children in  (a) St. Albans constituency and  (b) Hertfordshire have had a dual placement in a special school and a mainstream school in each of the last five years; and if he will make a statement.

Parmjit Dhanda: The available information on the number of pupils of compulsory school age with dual registration status is given in the following table.
	Pupils who are dually registered at two schools will generally spend more time at one school (dual "main" registration) than at the other (dual "subsidiary" registration). A detailed breakdown of dual registrations is not available from all school types.
	
		
			  Maintained primary, secondary and all special schools, pupil referral units and independent schools: number of dually registered pupils: Position in January each year: 2002 to 2006, Hertfordshire local authority area and St. Albans constituency 
			  Headcount of pupils aged 5 to 15( 1) 
			   Maintained primary and secondary schools( 2)  Maintained special schools  Non-maintained special schools  Pupil referral units  Independent schools 
			   Dual (main)  Dual (subsidiary)  Dual (main)  Dual (subsidiary)  Dual (main)  Dual (subsidiary)  Dual( 4)  Dual( 4) 
			  Hertfordshire local authority area 
			 2002(3) 0 5 (5)— 12 0 (6)— 47 (6)— 
			 2003 7 16 12 12 0 0 65 (6)— 
			 2004 16 15 15 15 0 0 29 (6)— 
			 2005 16 16 23 18 0 0 40 (6)— 
			 2006 60 12 20 17 0 0 37 (6)— 
			  
			  St. Albans parliamentary constituency 
			 2002(3) 0 0 0 0 0 (6)— 7 (6)— 
			 2003 0 0 9 (5)— 0 0 8 (6)— 
			 2004 0 0 10 (5)— 0 0 (5)— (6)— 
			 2005 0 0 15 0 0 0 (5)— (6)— 
			 2006 (5)— (5)— 15 0 0 0 (5)— (6)— 
			 (1) Age at the start of the school year. (2) Includes middle schools as deemed. (3) Due to differences and changes in the underlying data collection, the number of pupils with dual subsidiary registration are not available for non-maintained special schools for 2002. (4) Includes both main and subsidiary dual registrations. (5) One or two pupils. (6) Not available.  Source: Schools' Census.

Fingerprinting

Mark Lancaster: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what the legal basis is for schools  (a) to obtain and  (b) to hold records of pupils' fingerprints (i) with and (ii) without prior parental consent.

Jim Knight: Schools and local authorities are responsible for deciding their own policies relating to information about children which they wish to hold and use, subject to the relevant law on data protection, confidentiality, freedom of information and human rights. It is for each school to decide whether or not to collect pupils' biometric data. A school may wish to obtain and hold such data for different reasons, so there may be different legal basis from one circumstance to another. However in obtaining and holding biometric data, the school is likely to rely on the broad powers contained in paragraph 3 of schedule 1 of the Education Act 2002 which give the governing body of a school the power to
	"do anything which appears to them to be necessary or expedient for the purposes of, or in connection with the conduct of the school".
	Pupils' fingerprints should be handled in the same way as other personal data about pupils and are subject to the Data Protection Act 1998. Under the Data Protection Act consent is not the only condition for the collection and use of data and will not necessarily require schools to seek consent from parents about the use of Biometric data, though it is for the school to ensure it is acting in compliance with the Act. However under the terms of the Act schools should provide notification of their use of data to individuals involved.

IT Projects

Vincent Cable: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many information technology projects within the responsibility of his Department, its agencies and their predecessors have been cancelled since 1997; what the total cost was of each project at cancellation; and if he will make a statement.

Parmjit Dhanda: The information as requested is not readily available centrally within the Department for Education and Skills. To respond fully would involve an extensive internal and external information collection exercise which would exceed the recommended disproportionate cost threshold.
	However, to be helpful, some information is a matter of record.
	 (1) The Department's Individual Learning Account (ILA) Programme, which was ICT enabled, was withdrawn in 2002 following allegations of fraud and abuse. Expenditure on the scheme totalled £268.8 million; the majority of this amount being payments to learning providers. Analysis of the scheme is given in the report: 'The House of Commons Committee of Public Accounts (2003), Individual Learning Accounts, Tenth Report of Session 2002-03 (Ref: HC 544), TSO, London'.
	 (2) A project comprising two contracts to upgrade the Department's payroll and human resources systems was abandoned when, after extensive delays during the development, it became apparent that the IT related costs would escalate, and better value for money would be achieved by finding an alternative software solution. Significant compensatory payments were secured as part of a negotiated settlement on one contract but are subject to confidentiality agreements. The costs incurred on the second contract totalled £348,682; these details were reported in the 'Notes to the
	Department for Education and Skills Resource Accounts for 2003-04 (Ref: HC 227), TSO, London January 2005'.
	 (3) The Government allocated £62 million to the HEFCE for the UK e-University (UKeU). Project over the period 2001-04 with the aim of establishing the e-University as a single vehicle for the delivery of UK universities' HE programmes over the internet. UKeU launched its first programmes in 2003, attracting just 900 students against a target of 5,600. On 25 February 2004, the HEFCE Board decided that in future HEFCE funding should support the development of e-learning in universities and colleges—in effect the HEFCE terminated UKeU. £50 million out of the Government's allocation of £62 million had been spent on the project. An analysis of the project is given in the report: 'The House of Commons Education and Skills Select Committee (2005), UK e-University, Third Report of Session 2004-05 (Ref: HC 205), TSO', London.

Music Tuition

Edward Vaizey: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what steps his Department is taking to increase pupil demand for learning a musical instrument.

Jim Knight: We are not aware of any reduction in the demand from pupils for learning a musical instrument. The Survey of Local Education Music Services 2002 reported that "although the proportion of individuals learning to play an instrument is relatively small, demand for tuition is very high". A report to the QCA in 2002 indicated that about 40 per cent. of children not already playing an instrument wanted to learn. Encouraging pupil demand is not therefore a problem but we do want to improve access. The Government accept the value of learning to play and has pledged to ensure that over time every child at Key Stage 2 who wants to should have the opportunity to learn a musical instrument. £30 million of additional funding is being made available over this year and next specifically to support instrumental and vocal tuition for Key Stage 2 pupils.

Qualified Teacher Status

Stephen Williams: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what proportion of people successfully completing a Post-Graduate Certificate in Education went on to attain Qualified Teacher Status within one year in each of the last three years, broken down by subject.

Jim Knight: The percentages of trainee teachers completing a Post Graduate Certificate in Education (PGCE) in each of the academic years, 2003/04, 2004/05 and 2005/06 and attaining Qualified Teacher Status (QTS) within one year, by subject specialism, are shown in the following table:
	
		
			  Table( 1) : Percentage of trainee teachers completing PGCE and attaining QTS within one year of completion by academic year 
			  Academic year  2003/04  2004/05  2005/06( 2) 
			 Primary 91 91 86 
			 
			  Secondary by subject:
			 Mathematics 87 83 82 
			 English (inc. Drama) 90 86 86 
			 Science 88 86 83 
			 Modern foreign languages 88 85 83 
			 Technology 89 87 83 
			 History 88 91 87 
			 Geography 89 90 89 
			 Physical education 97 95 92 
			 Art 86 83 79 
			 Music 89 86 85 
			 Religious education 81 81 81 
			 Citizenship 93 90 83 
			 Other(3) 87 90 89 
			 Vocational subjects(4) — 83 83 
			 Total 89 87 84 
			 
			 Primary and Secondary 89 88 85 
			 (1) Source—General Teaching Council for England (GTCE). (2) Data for 2005/06 is provisional and reflects the number of trainees who have achieved QTS as at 1 January 2007. The number achieving QTS will be updated during the course of the year. (3) Other includes classics, dance, economics, media, performing arts, social studies, general studies, social sciences, teacher training and humanities. It also includes a small number of cases where subject specification is not known. (4) Vocational subjects include applied ICT, applied science, applied business, engineering, manufacturing, and health and social care. The data for the academic year 2003/04 are not shown because of low number of cases.

Respite Care

John Bercow: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills 
	(1)  how many respite care home placements were available to disabled children in  (a) Aylesbury Vale and  (b) England in (i) 2000 and (ii) 2005;
	(2)  what percentage of children in the care system are of ethnic minority origin;
	(3)  how many foster care placements there were in  (a) Aylesbury Vale and  (b) England in (i) 2000 and (ii) 2005.

Parmjit Dhanda: Information on the number of respite care home placements available to disabled children is not collected centrally. The Department collects information on the number of children looked after under an agreed series of short term breaks (respite care) by type of placement. This information is shown in table 1. Information is not collected at district level so figures for Buckinghamshire have been included.
	The percentage of children looked after during the year ending 31 March 2006 by ethnic origin is shown in table 2.
	The number of foster placements that were made during 2000 and 2005 by English local authorities and those made by Buckinghamshire county council are shown in table 3. Information on the location of these foster placements and the number of foster placements in Aylesbury Vale is not collected centrally.
	
		
			  Table 1: Children looked after during the year under at least one agreed series of short term placements by type of placement( 1, 2, 3) 
			  Numbers 
			   2000( 4)  2005( 5) 
			   England  Buckinghamshire  England  Buckinghamshire 
			 All Children 12,800 90 11,700 35 
			  
			 Foster placements 6,400 30 5,000 10 
			 Children's homes(6) 5,600 55 5,900 25 
			 Placed for adoption 10 0 0 0 
			 Placement with parents 20 0 70 0 
			 Other accommodation(7) 750 — 770 — 
			 (1) All children looked after under one or more agreed series of short term placements at any time during the year ending 31 March. (2) Placement relates to child's latest episode of care during the year. (3) Historical data may differ from older publications. This is mainly due to the implementation of amendments and corrections sent by some local authorities after the publication date of previous materials. (4) Figures are derived from the SSDA903 one-third sample survey. (5) Figures are taken from the SSDA903 return which in 2004-05 covered all looked after children. (6) Includes secure units, homes, hostels and residential schools (7) Includes lodgings and other residential settings 
		
	
	
		
			  Table 2 : Children looked after in the year ending 31 March 2006( 1, 2 ) by ethnic origin—England 
			  Numbers and percentages 
			   2006 
			 All children(1) 83,900 100 
			
			 White 64,700 77 
			 Mixed 6,800 8 
			 Asian or Asian British 3,100 4 
			 Black or Black British 7,300 9 
			 Other ethnic groups 1,900 2 
			 1. Figures exclude children looked after under an agreed series of short term placements. 2. Figures are taken from the SSDA903 return 
		
	
	
		
			  Table 3: Number of foster placement that occurred during the years ending 31 March 2000 and 2005( 1, 2 , 3) 
			  Numbers 
			   All foster placement that occurred during the year 
			   1999-2000( 4, 5)  2004-05( 4, 6) 
			 England 92,200 86,700 
			 Buckinghamshire 380 380 
			 (1) All foster placement that occurred during the year. (2) Children looked after who were placed with a foster carer and subsequently changed to another foster placement in the years ending 31 March 2000 and 2005 were counted more than once. (3) Figures exclude children looked after under an agreed series of short term placements. (4) For the purpose of preserving confidentiality, national figures have been rounded to the nearest 100 if they exceed 1,000 and to the nearest 10. (5) Figures are derived from the SSDA903 return, which in 1999-2000 covered a third of children looked after. (6) Figures are taken from the SSDA903 return which since 2003-04 covers all looked after children.

Ritalin

Barry Sheerman: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills 
	(1)  how many schools have requested that pupils are prescribed Ritalin as a condition of remaining at the school;
	(2)  what assessment he has made of the extent of the use of Ritalin by school pupils;
	(3)  what discussions he has had with colleagues in the Department of Health on the prescribing of Ritalin to school pupils;
	(4)  what assessment he has made of whether pressure is being brought to bear on pupils by schools to take Ritalin and on their parents to ensure that they do so.

Parmjit Dhanda: I have no evidence of schools asking that pupils be prescribed Ritalin as a condition of their remaining at school, or of putting pressure on them to take Ritalin and on their parents to ensure that they do. Schools do not have authority to request that pupils be prescribed any medicines, including Ritalin. Ritalin can be prescribed only by an appropriately qualified prescriber. In 2005 my Department issued guidance on 'Managing Medicines in Schools and Early Years Settings' designed to help schools develop policies on managing medicines and supporting individual children with medical needs.
	The Department does not collect information on the number of children prescribed Ritalin (methylphenidate). According to Prescribing Analysis and Cost Tabulation (PACT) Data issued by the Prescription Pricing Division of the NHS Business Services Authority, in the year to 31 August 2006, 384,000 prescriptions for methylphenidate were dispensed in England to children aged 0 to15 years and those aged 16 to 18 years in full time education. This does not show how many children were prescribed the drug.
	The Department works closely and regularly with the Department of Health (DH) on children's mental health issues. While DH has responsibility for the clinical aspects of mental health conditions, including ADHD, DfES has taken a number of steps to raise the profile of mental health and emotional well-being issues generally across our educational settings and children's services.

School Absences: Coventry

Jim Cunningham: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many unauthorised absences from schools in Coventry South there were in each year between 1997 and 2006.

Jim Knight: holding answer 8 January 2007
	The number of half days missed due to unauthorised absence in Coventry South between 1997 and 2006 is shown in the following tables.
	
		
			  Half days missed in maintained primary schools( 1)  due to unauthorised absence( 2, 3) 
			   Percentage 
			 1997/98 0.4 
			 1998/99 0.3 
			 1999/2000 0.3 
			 2000/01 0.4 
			 2001/02 0.4 
			 2002/03 0.2 
			 2003/04 0.2 
			 2004/05 0.2 
			 2005/06(4) 0.2 
		
	
	
		
			  Half days missed in maintained secondary schools( 1)  due to unauthorised absence( 2, 3) 
			   Percentage 
			 1997/98 1.2 
			 1998/99 1.4 
			 1999/2000 1.2 
			 2000/01 1.1 
			 2001/02 0.9 
			 2002/03 0.9 
			 2003/04 0.8 
			 2004/05 1.1 
			 2005/06(4) 1.0 
			 (1) Includes middle schools as deemed. (2) Due to local government reorganisation, regional figures are not available prior to 1998. (3) Figures are only provided to 1 decimal place. (4) Figures for 2005/06 are provisional. 
		
	
	Unauthorised absence is absence without leave from a teacher or other authorised representative of the school. This includes all unexplained or unjustified absences, such as lateness, holidays during term time not authorised by the school, absence where reason is not yet established and truancy.

Special Educational Needs

Anne Main: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what proportion of children with special educational needs in  (a) St. Albans and  (b) Hertfordshire are on a school action plan.

Parmjit Dhanda: The following table shows information on pupils in maintained primary, secondary and special schools and non-maintained special schools who are supported at School Action and School Action Plus as part of the graduated approach to meeting the needs of children who have special educational needs (SEN). The table also shows children with SEN but without statements who attend maintained nursery schools, pupils referral units and independent schools.
	
		
			  Number of pupils with special educational needs (SEN) without statements by type of school, January 2006, Hertfordshire local authority and St. Albans parliamentary constituency 
			   Hertfordshire local authority area  St. Albans parliamentary constituency 
			  All schools( 1)   
			 Pupils with SEN without statements 25,892 1,999 
			 Pupils on roll 198,338 20,453 
			 Incidence (percentage)(2) 13.1 9.8 
			
			  Maintained schools   
			  Nursery   
			 SEN provision—early years action 68 (3)— 
			 SEN provision—early years action plus 40 (3)— 
			 Pupils with SEN without statements 108 (4)— 
			 Pupils on roll 1,248 130 
			 Incidence (percentage)(2) 8.7 3.1 
			 Placement (percentage)(5) 0.4 0.2 
			
			  Primary   
			 SEN provision—school action 8,410 610 
			 SEN provision—school action plus 4,725 408 
			 Pupils with SEN without statements 13,135 1,018 
			 Pupils on roll 92,150 8,184 
			 Incidence (percentage)(2) 14.3 12.4 
			 Placement (percentage)(5) 50.7 50.9 
			
			  Secondary   
			 SEN provision—school action 7,410 580 
			 SEN provision—school action plus 3,278 300 
			 Pupils with SEN without statements 10,688 880 
			 Pupils on roll 80,252 9,192 
			 Incidence (percentage)(2) 13.3 9.6 
			 Placement (percentage)(5) 41.3 44.0 
			
			  Special( 1,7)   
			 SEN provision—school action 0 0 
			 SEN provision—school action plus 0 0 
			 Pupils with SEN without statements 0 0 
			 Pupils on roll 2,082 238 
			 Incidence (percentage)(2) 0.0 0.0 
			 Placement (percentage)(5) 0.0 0.0 
			
			  Pupil Referral Units( 6,7)   
			 Pupils with SEN without statements 75 9 
			 Pupils on roll 139 10 
			 Incidence (percentage)(2) 54.0 90.0 
			 Placement (percentage)(5) 0.3 0.5 
			  
			  Other schools   
			  
			  Independent( 8)   
			 Pupils with SEN without statements 1,886 88 
			 Pupils on roll 22,413 2,699 
			 Incidence (percentage)(2) 8.4 3.3 
			 Placement (percentage)(5) 7.3 4.4 
			
			  Non-Maintained Special( 6)   
			 SEN provision—school action 0 n/a 
			 SEN provision—school action plus 0 n/a 
			 Pupils with SEN without statements 0 n/a 
			 Pupils on roll 54 n/a 
			 Incidence (percentage)(2) 0.0 n/a 
			 Placement (percentage)(5) 0.0 n/a 
			 n/a = no schools of this type. (1) Excludes general hospital schools. Data for pupils with SEN without statements is not collected from these schools. (2) Incidence of pupils—the number of pupils with SEN without statements expressed as a proportion of pupils on roll. (3) Less than three. (4) Less than five. (5) Placement of pupils—the number of pupils with SEN without statements expressed as a proportion of pupils with SEN without statements in all schools. (6) Excludes dually registered pupils. (7) Includes pupils with other providers. (8 )Including direct grant nursery schools, city technology colleges and academies.

Special Educational Needs

Anne Main: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many cases of exclusions for children with a special educational need have been referred to the Special Educational Need and Disability Tribunal in  (a) St. Albans and  (b) Hertfordshire.

Parmjit Dhanda: The Department does not collect the information requested. The Special Educational Needs and Disability Tribunal (SENDIST), which is independent of my Department, publishes details of the numbers and types of cases it deals with on its website www.sendist.gov.uk and can be contacted at SENDIST, Procession House, 55 Ludgate Hill, London EC4M 7SW.
	
		
			  Permanent exclusions of pupils with SEN 1997/98-2004/05 
			   Permanent exclusions  Fixed period exclusions 
			   Number of exclusions  Percentage of permanent exclusions( 1)  Percentage of school population( 2)  Number of exclusions  Percentage of permanent exclusions( 1)  Percentage of school population( 2) 
			  1997/98   
			 Pupils with statements of SEN 2,250 18 0.96 n/a n/a n/a 
			 Pupils without statements of SEN 10,050 82 0.14 n/a n/a n/a 
			 All pupils 12,300 100 0.16 n/a n/a n/a 
			
			  1998/99   
			 Pupils with statements of SEN 1,920 18 0.78 n/a n/a n/a 
			 Pupils without statements of SEN 8,510 82 0.11 n/a n/a n/a 
			 All pupils 10,430 100 0.13 n/a n/a n/a 
			
			  1999/2000   
			 Pupils with statements of SEN 1,490 18 0.61 n/a n/a n/a 
			 Pupils without statements of SEN 6,830 82 0.09 n/a n/a n/a 
			 All pupils 8,320 100 0.11 n/a n/a n/a 
			
			  2000/01( 3)   
			 Pupils with statements of SEN 810 9 0.33 n/a n/a n/a 
			 Pupils without statements of SEN(4) 8,330 91 0.11 n/a n/a n/a 
			 All pupils 9,140 100 0.12 n/a n/a n/a 
			
			  2001/02( 3)   
			 Pupils with statements of SEN 1,140 12 0.48 n/a n/a n/a 
			 Pupils without statements of SEN(4) 8,400 88 0.11 n/a n/a n/a 
			  of which:   
			 SEN pupils without statements 4,700 49 0.35 n/a n/a n/a 
			 Pupils with no SEN 3,700 39 0.06 n/a n/a n/a 
			 All pupils 9,540 100 0.12 n/a n/a n/a 
			
			  2002/03( 3)   
			 Pupils with statements of SEN 1,030 11 0.43 n/a n/a n/a 
			 Pupils without statements of SEN(4) 8,260 89 0.11 n/a n/a n/a 
			  of which:   
			 SEN pupils without statements 5,140 55 0.46 n/a n/a n/a 
			 Pupils with no SEN 3,120 34 0.05 n/a n/a n/a 
			 All pupils 9,290 100 0.12 n/a n/a n/a 
			
			  2003/04( 3)   
			 Pupils with statements of SEN 1,040 11 0.44 39,790 12 17.1 
			 Pupils without statements of SEN(4) 8,840 89 0.12 304,710 88 4.1 
			  of which:   
			 SEN pupils without statements 5,240 53 0.46 1 33, 290 39 11.7 
			 Pupils with no SEN 3,600 36 0.06 171,420 50 2.7 
			 All pupils(5) 9,880 100 0.13 344,510 100 4.5 
			
			  2004/05( 3)   
			 Pupils with statements of SEN 850 9 0.37 42,080 11 18.5 
			 Pupils without statements of SEN(4) 8,590 91 0.12 347,480 89 4.7 
			  of which:   
			 SEN pupils without statements 4,620 49 0.40 750,360 39 12.9 
			 Pupils with no SEN 3,970 42 0.06 197,130 51 3.2 
			 All pupils(5) 9,440 100 0.12 389,560 100 5 
			 n/a = not available (1) The number of permanent exclusions expressed as a percentage of the total number of permanent exclusions. (2) The number of excluded pupils by SEN stage expressed as a percentage of all pupils with the same SEN stage in primary, secondary and all special schools (excludes dually registered pupils) in January. (3) Figures relating to permanent exclusions are estimates based on incomplete pupil-level data. See Notes to Editors 3. (4) The introduction of the new SEN Code of Practice means that the number of children with SEN without statements reported in 2000/01 and later are not directly comparable with earlier years. Includes pupils with no SEN and SEN pupils without statements. See Notes to Editors 7. (5) There was one permanent exclusion and 12 fixed period exclusions for which stage of SEN was not known—these were included in total for 'all pupils' only.  Notes: 1. Includes middle schools as deemed. 2. For permanent exclusions includes both maintained and non-maintained special schools. For fixed period exclusions excludes non-maintained special schools. 3. Totals may not appear to equal the sum of component parts because numbers have been rounded to the nearest 10.  Source: Schools Census and Termly Exclusions Survey

University Access

Ian Gibson: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what monitoring he has made of fair access to working class applicants for  (a) the university of East Anglia and  (b) Cambridge university.

Bill Rammell: The latest available access performance indicator information for the universities of Cambridge and East Anglia is shown in the tables. It is important to note, however, that these data are collected by and for the higher education sector although Government are interested in what they show.
	
		
			  Table 1: Proportion of young entrants to full-time first degree courses from the state sector 
			  Percentage 
			   2000/01  2001/02  2002/03  2003/04  2004/05 
			 University of Cambridge 53.4 54.5 57.6 56.9 56.8 
			  Against benchmark( 1) : 66.1 67.9 76.8 75.3 75.0 
			 University of East Anglia 88.1 88.5 88.4 88.0 87.5 
			  Against benchmark( 1) : 82.2 82.7 83.4 81.1 82.3 
			 (1) The benchmark is a sector average which is adjusted for each institution to take into account the following factors: subject of study, qualifications on entry and age on entry. The benchmarks can be used to show how a university is performing compared to the sector as a whole, and also helps to determine whether a meaningful comparison can be drawn between two or more universities.  Source: Performance Indicators in Higher Education, published by the Higher Education Statistics Agency (HESA). 
		
	
	
		
			  Table 2: Proportion of young entrants to full-time first degree courses from lower social classes (IIIm, IV and V) or lower socio-economic groups (4, 5, 6 and 7) 
			  Percentage 
			   Lower social classes (IIIm, IV and V)( 1)  Lower socio-economic groups (4-7)( 1) 
			   2000/01  2001/02  2002/03  2003/04  2004/05 
			 University of Cambridge 9.1 9.3 11.3 11.4 12.4 
			  Against benchmark( 2) : 12.7 13.6 17.3 18.2 17.8 
			 University of East Anglia 19.7 18.8 21.4 21.4 22.6 
			  Against benchmark( 2) : 22.3 22.9 24.7 22.2 24.5 
			 (1) The National Statistics socio-economic classification was introduced in 2002/03 to replace the social class groupings. The two classifications are not directly comparable. (2) The benchmark is a sector average which is adjusted for each institution to take into account the following factors: subject of study, qualifications on entry and age on entry. The benchmarks can be used to show how a university is performing compared to the sector as a whole, and also helps to determine whether a meaningful comparison can be drawn between two or more universities.  Source: Performance Indicators in Higher Education, published by the Higher Education Statistics Agency (HESA). 
		
	
	
		
			  Table 3: Proportion of young entrants to full-time first degree courses from low participation neighbourhoods 
			  Percentage 
			   2000/01  2001/02  2002/03  2003/04  2004/05 
			 University of Cambridge 4.7 4.9 5.4 6.1 5.3 
			  Against benchmark( 1) : 6.7 7.4 8.9 8.9 8.7 
			 University of East Anglia 7.9 8.7 7.6 8.2 7.8 
			  Against benchmark( 1) : 11.2 11.7 12.0 11.4 11.8 
			 (1) The benchmark is a sector average which is adjusted for each institution to take into account the following factors: subject of study, qualifications on entry and age on entry. The benchmarks can be used to show how a university is performing compared to the sector as a whole, and also helps to determine whether a meaningful comparison can be drawn between two or more universities.  Source: Performance Indicators in Higher Education, published by the Higher Education Statistics Agency (HESA). 
		
	
	The Higher Education Statistics Agency is reviewing the current methodology for calculating benchmarks, with a view to developing more sophisticated alternatives.

Affordable Housing

Dawn Butler: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what steps he is taking to encourage the provision of more affordable housing in Northern Ireland.

David Hanson: Government have been dealing with the issue of affordable housing through the Social Housing Development Programme, the Co-ownership shared equity scheme, and the housing benefit system. An independent review has also been commissioned to look at barriers affecting those seeking affordable housing and the final recommendations will be presented to Government in the spring.

Local Democracy

Adrian Bailey: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what recent discussions have taken place between his Department and representatives of local government on strengthening local democracy in Northern Ireland.

David Cairns: I meet with elected representatives from local government on a regular basis to drive the implementation of the reform programme forward through a Taskforce which was established early last year. The decisions arising from the Review of Public Administration in relation to local government are designed to strengthen the role of local government in Northern Ireland and place it at the heart of local democracy.

Re-offending Rates

Alasdair McDonnell: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many of those convicted of  (a) a criminal offence and  (b) an offence of a sexual nature went on to re-offend in each of the last five years, broken down into risk management categories A, B and C.

David Hanson: The latest available reconviction figures cover the two year period subsequent to 2002. Reconviction figures for sexual offenders relate to any criminal reconviction and not necessarily reconviction for a sexual offence. Information on risk management categories is not held centrally on the reconviction database and therefore it is not possible to break down this information further.
	Table 1 provides information on those convicted of  (a) any criminal offence and  (b) an offence of a sexual nature who were either discharged from custody or given a community based disposal in 2002 and who were reconvicted within the subsequent two year period.
	
		
			  Table 1: Reconviction rates for those discharged from custody or given a community based disposal in 2002 and who were reconvicted within a two year period 
			  Offender type  All offences  Sexual offences 
			 Number discharged 2,210 65 
			 Number reconvicted 953 9 
			 Percentage reconvicted 43.1 13.8

High Hedges

Bob Russell: To ask the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government how many high hedges appeals have been made under section 71 of the Anti-social Behaviour Act 2003; and how many have been upheld in favour of the appellant.

Meg Munn: At 8 January 2007, a total of 421 high hedges appeals had been made since part 8 of the Anti-social Behaviour Act 2003 came into operation in England on 1 June 2005. 34 were either withdrawn or rejected as invalid. Information on the remaining 387 appeals is set out in the following table.
	
		
			  High hedges appeals made under section 71 of the Anti-social Behaviour Act 2003—position at 8 January 2007 
			   Complainant  Hedge owner  Total 
			  Appeals received
			 Remedial notice 110 180 290 
			 No remedial notice 97 — 97 
			 All 207 180 387 
			 
			  Decisions issued
			 Allowed 31 18 49 
			 Allowed in part 13 38 51 
			 Dismissed 92 59 151 
			 All 136 115 251

Controlled Drinking Zones

Eric Pickles: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department which local authorities have introduced controlled drinking zones.

Vernon Coaker: Since September 2001 over 190 local authority areas have notified the Home Office that they have made designation orders under section 13 of the Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001 to restrict anti-social public drinking by introducing a Designated Public Place Order (DPPO), in areas that have experienced alcohol-related disorder or nuisance.
	These are sometime mistakenly referred to as controlled drinking zones.
	Once in place a DPPO provides the police with the power to enforce the restriction, where necessary because of antisocial alcohol misuse, by confiscating both opened and sealed containers. There are currently over 400 DPPOs and some areas have introduced more than one. A full list of the local authorities that have introduced DPPOs can be found on the following website:
	www.crimereduction.gov.uk/alcoholorders09.htm

Police Budgets

Tobias Ellwood: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the budget was of each police constabulary in 2005-06; and what each constabularies' performance against target was in this year.

Tony McNulty: holding answer 6 December 2006
	The information requested on police authority budgets in England and Wales in 2005-06 is set out in the table.
	Police forces are assessed by comparison to relative performance of other forces facing similar demands, rather than against fixed targets. A copy of the most recent Police Performance Assessments have been placed in the House Library and are also available at:
	http://police.homeoffice.gov.uk/performance-and-measurement/performance-assessment/assessments-2005-2006/
	
		
			  Police authority budgets in England and Wales 2005-06 
			  Police authority  Budget requirement 2005-06 (£) 
			 Avon and Somerset 240,632,000 
			 Bedfordshire 87,283,056 
			 Cambridgeshire 112,525,434 
			 Cheshire 148,387,000 
			 Cleveland 114,811,422 
			 Cumbria 89,115,200 
			 Derbyshire 145,884,008 
			 Devon and Cornwall 243,711,293 
			 Dorset 106,976,800 
			 Durham 105,403,420 
			 Essex 232,229,000 
			 Gloucestershire 95,927,750 
			 Hampshire 272,889,000 
			 Hertfordshire 159,457,979 
			 Humberside 156,908,520 
			 Kent 256,520,400 
			 Lancashire 240,365,000 
			 Leicestershire 146,275,519 
			 Lincolnshire 89,863,416 
			 Norfolk 127,468,324 
			 Northamptonshire 101,803,000 
			 North Yorkshire 126,165,400 
			 Nottinghamshire 173,367,000 
			 Staffordshire 163,905,000 
			 Suffolk 98,862,728 
			 Surrey 165,407,184 
			 Sussex 231,282,000 
			 Thames Valley 325,214,230 
			 Warwickshire 77,200,000 
			 West Mercia 172,791,000 
			 Wiltshire 92,705,000 
			 Total Shires 4,901,337,083 
			   
			 Greater Manchester 493,914,043 
			 Merseyside 306,627,744 
			 Northumbria 262,015,000 
			 South Yorkshire 226,351,089 
			 West Midlands 490,960,000 
			 West Yorkshire 382,975,000 
			 Total Mets 2,162,842,876 
			   
			 Total England (exc. London) 7,064,179,959 
			   
			 Metropolitan 2,488,300,000 
			   
			 Total England (inc. London) 9,552,479,959 
			   
			 Dyfed-Powys 80,276,930 
			 Gwent 102,311,000 
			 North Wales 120,677,834 
			 South Wales 227,435,012 
			 Total Wales 530,700,776 
			   
			 Total England and Wales 10,083,180,735 
			  Source:  Department for Communities and Local Government—English Police Authorities/Welsh Assembly Government—Welsh Police Authorities

Electoral Participation Fund

Oliver Heald: To ask the Minister of State, Department for Constitutional Affairs what the criteria are for local authorities to receive funds from the electoral participation fund.

Bridget Prentice: The aim of the participation fund is to enable local electoral officers to use their new powers under section 69 of the Electoral Administration Act to promote participation in the electoral process, within their local area.
	No specific criteria for the nature of promotional activities have been set out. However, such activities should not be part of electoral officers' ordinary duties, such as sending out registration forms during the canvass. The Electoral Commission will also be issuing guidance to electoral officers on the types of activities they might consider.

Annual Report

John Hayes: To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will break down by main budget heading the  (a) Corporate and Shared Services,  (b) Public Corporations,  (c) Children's Benefits and  (d) Grants to Independent Bodies budgets listed on pages 146-48 of his 2006 departmental annual report.

Anne McGuire: Further detail on information provided in the 2006 Departmental Report (cm 6829) (Tables 1 and 2) is provided as follows:
	 (a) Corporate and Shared Services
	The following table provides a breakdown of corporate and shared services included in tables 1 and 2.
	
		
			  £ million 
			   Outturn 
			   2000-01  2001-02  2002-03  2003-04  2004-05 
			  Administration costs  
			 Salaries 242 239 310 334 423 
			 Other running costs(3) 66 1,487 2,285 2,375 2,090 
			 Non-cash costs(4) 14 10 25 10 26 
			 Unallocated(5) 0 0 0 0 0 
			 Total administration 322 1,736 2,620 2,719 2,539 
			   
			  Other current costs  
			 Exit funding(6) 0 0 0 0 10 
			 Other programme costs 2 22 0 2 4 
			 Unallocated(5) 0 0 0 0 0 
			 Total other current 2 22 0 2 14 
			   
			  Receipts  
			 Receipts from other Government Departments (33) (44) (9) (10) (11) 
			 National insurance fund(7) (168) (299) (581) (1,046) (775) 
			 Other receipts (8) (1) (33) (33) (30) 
			 Total receipts (209) (344) (623) (1,089) (816) 
			 Total corporate and shared services as shown in departmental report 2006 115 1,414 1,997 1,632 1,737 
		
	
	
		
			  £ million 
			   Estimated outturn( 1)  Plans( 2) 
			   2005-06  2006-07  2007-08 
			  Administration costs
			 Salaries 274 271 255 
			 Other running costs(3) 1,714 1,469 1,316 
			 Non-cash costs(4) 10 17 18 
			 Unallocated(5) 19 211 425 
			 Total administration 2,017 1,968 2,014 
			 
			  Other current costs
			 Exit funding(6) 155 148 173 
			 Other programme costs 2 2 2 
			 Unallocated(5) (39) 0 0 
			 Total other current 118 150 175 
			 
			  Receipts
			 Receipts from other Government Departments (12) (11) (12) 
			 National insurance fund(7) 0 0 0 
			 Other receipts (49) (19) (17) 
			 Total receipts (61) (30) (29) 
			 Total corporate and shared services as shown in departmental report 2006 2,074 2,088 2,160 
			 (1) Figures based on the estimated forecast outturn at time of compilation. (2) Plans relate to agreed departmental funding at time of compilation. (3) Variations year on year are mainly caused by expenditure on the Department's modernisation programme which typically peaked in 2003-04 and 2004-05. (4) Includes depreciation, provisions, cost of capital charges. (5) Relates to budgets not allocated to specific business areas at time of compilation. (6) From 2004-05 exit funding is included within other current rather than administration costs, as agreed in the Department's SR04 settlement. (7) Following change in accounting treatment national insurance fund (NIF) receipts apportioned to relevant business areas from 2005-06 rather than held centrally. 
		
	
	 (b) Public Corporations
	The Department only accounts for grants-in-aid paid to Remploy Ltd, these amounts are shown in the departmental report.
	(1) Figures based on the estimated forecast outturn at time of compilation.
	(2) Plans relate to agreed departmental funding at time of compilation.
	A further breakdown of Remploy Ltd spending is provided in their annual accounts which are published on the following website:
	http://www.remploy.co.uk/about/accounts/
	Figures for 2005-06 include £115 million of Remploy Ltd grant-in-aid within working age figures (as referenced in note 12 to Table 1).
	 (c) Children's Benefits
	This solely relates to elements of child benefit which were transferred to the Inland Revenue (now HM Revenue and Customs) in April 2003. These amounts are shown in the departmental report.
	(1) Figures based on the estimated forecast outturn at time of compilation.
	(2) Plans relate to agreed Departmental funding at time of compilation.
	(3) Amounts below £0.5 million are indicated by #.
	 (d) Grants to Independent Bodies
	Grants to independent bodies included within disability benefits relate to the independent living fund and motability. The amounts included within the 2006 departmental report are detailed in the following table:
	
		
			  £ million 
			   Independent living fund  Motability 
			  Outturn   
			 2000-01 132 2 
			 2001-02 149 9 
			 2002-03 168 7 
			 2003-04 189 6 
			 2004-05 209 8 
			
			  Estimated outturn( 1)   
			 2005-06 226 8 
			
			  Plans( 2)   
			 2006-07 253 9 
			 2007-08 268 8 
			 (1) Figures based on the estimated forecast outturn at time of compilation. (2) Plans relate to agreed departmental funding at time of compilation.

Benefits

Tony Baldry: To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what estimate he has made of the amount of money that has been paid in error in benefits to illegal immigrants in each of the last five years.

James Plaskitt: I refer the hon. Member to the written answer I gave the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr. Hammond) on 13 September 2006,  Official Report, column 2367W.

Benefits

John Battle: To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many women in  (a) Leeds, West constituency and  (b) Leeds have received the Sure Start maternity grant since 2001.

Anne McGuire: The available information is in the following table.
	
		
			  Sure Start maternity grant awards in Leeds Social Fund District / Leeds Jobcentre Plus District 
			   Number of awards 
			 2001-02 2,770 
			 2002-03 3,300 
			 2003-04 3,150 
			 2004-05 3,190 
			 2005-06 3,260 
			 2006-07 to 30 November 2,250 
			  Notes: 1. Data is not available by parliamentary constituency but only by Jobcentre Plus District. 2. Leeds Jobcentre Plus District was previously known as Leeds Social Fund District. 3. Figures are for all awards, irrespective of whether the award was made to the mother or her partner. 4. Some women will have received more than one Sure Start Maternity Grant since 2001-02. 5. Figures have been rounded to the nearest 10.  Source:  DWP Social Fund Policy, Budget and Management Information System.

Benefits

David Ruffley: To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what the cost was in 2005-06 prices of  (a) income support,  (b) incapacity benefit,  (c) disability living allowance,  (d) attendance allowance,  (e) the social fund,  (f) retirement pension,  (g) the state second pension/state earnings-related pension scheme and  (h) pension credit in each year since 1996-97; and what percentage of these costs was accounted for by administration in each year.

James Plaskitt: The available information is in the following tables.
	
		
			  Table A 
			  £ million, real terms 2005-06 prices (excluding administration costs) 
			   Income support (under 60)  Income support/minimum income guarantee (over 60)  Total incapacity benefit  Disability living allowance 
			 1996-97 13,206 4,739 9,518 5,588 
			 1997-98 9,890 4,554 8,948 5,980 
			 1998-99 9,621 4,260 8,536 6,259 
			 1999-2000 9,580 4,362 7,835 6,531 
			 2000-01 10,271 4,660 7,699 6,877 
			 2001-02 10,687 4,986 7,502 7,314 
			 2002-03 10,516 4,835 7,286 7,603 
			 2003-04 10,831 — 7,041 7,939 
			 2004-05 10,219 — 6,788 8,232 
			 2005-06 9,126 — 6,644 8,617 
			  Notes: 1. Benefit expenditure figures are in real terms 2005-06 prices, rounded to the nearest £ million and are consistent with pre-Budget report 2006. 2. The 1996-97 income support figures include around six months of income support paid to the unemployed. 3. Figures from 1996-97 to 2005-06 are out-turn. 4. Incapacity benefit figures do not include severe disablement allowance. 
		
	
	
		
			  Table B 
			  £ million, real terms 2005-06 prices (excluding administration costs) 
			   Attendance allowance  Social fund  Contributory retirement pension (basic state pension)  Contributory retirement pension earnings-related/S2P  Pension credit 
			 1996-97 2,973 297 36,323 3,423 — 
			 1997-98 3,044 224 36,688 3,822 — 
			 1998-99 3,155 234 37,572 4,309 — 
			 1999-2000 3,257 214 38,516 5,074 — 
			 2000-01 3,363 267 38,674 5,384 — 
			 2001-02 3,473 278 40,644 5,922 — 
			 2002-03 3,505 324 41,477 6,328 — 
			 2003-04 3,620 341 41,702 6,961 4,742 
			 2004-05 3,743 336 42,194 7,502 5,111 
			 2005-06 3,923 364 43,218 8,174 5,407 
			  Notes: 1. Benefit expenditure figures are in real terms 2005-06 prices, rounded to the nearest £ million and are consistent with pre-Budget report 2006. 2. The 2003-04 pension credit figure includes around £2.5 billion of minimum income guarantee, as pension credit was introduced on 6 October 2003 (rounded to nearest half £ billion). 3. Figures from 1996-97 to 2005-06 are out-turn. 
		
	
	
		
			  Table C: Administration cost by benefit 
			  £ million, 2005-06 prices 
			   Income support  Total incapacity benefit  Disability living allowance  Attendance allowance  Contributory retirement pension (basic state pension) and retirement pension earnings-related/S2P 
			 1996-97 1,349 453 183 102 376 
			 1997-98 866 355 198 92 377 
			 1998-99 684 441 140 38 370 
			  Notes: 1. Information on administrative costs prior to the creation of DWP in 2001 is not comparable to administrative costs now due to considerable organisational change. 2. Administration expenditure information is rounded to the nearest £ million in 2005-06 prices and has been taken from the 1998, 1999 and 1999-2000 Department for Social Security departmental reports. Information is only available to 1998-99. 3. The income support figures include expenditure on income support for the under 60s and over 60s. 4. From 1999-2000 the cost of administration is accounted for separately within the departmental expenditure limit (DEL) and the information requested on administration costs is not available in the format requested. 5. Administration expenditure is only available for the sum of contributory retirement pension (basic state pension) and retirement pension earnings-related/S2P expenditure. 6. Incapacity benefit figures do not include severe disablement allowance 
		
	
	
		
			  Table D: Administration percentage by benefit 
			   Income support  Total incapacity benefit  Disability living allowance  Attendance allowance  Contributory retirement pension (basic state pension) and retirement pension earnings-related/S2P 
			 1996-97 8 5 3 3 1 
			 1997-98 6 4 3 3 1 
			 1998-99 5 5 2 1 1 
			  Notes 1. Information on administrative costs prior to the creation of DWP in 2001 is not comparable to administrative costs now due to considerable organisational change. 2. Income support administration percentage is of the sum of income support for the under 60s and income support for the over 60s, except for 1996-97 which includes around six months expenditure on the unemployed in the percentage calculation. 3. Figures have been rounded to nearest whole percentage. 4. Incapacity benefit figures do not include severe disablement allowance. 
		
	
	
		
			  Table E: Social fund 
			   Including loans and recoveries (£ million, 2005-06 prices)  
			   Social fund,  Administration cost of social fund  Administration percentage by benefit 
			 1996-97 1,042 224 21 
			 1997-98 1,264 194 15 
			 1998-99 1,311 253 19 
			  Notes: 1. Information on administrative costs prior to the creation of DWP in 2001 is not comparable to administrative costs now due to considerable organisational change. 2. Administration costs for the net social fund is unavailable so the administration costs for the social fund, including loans and recoveries, has been shown, along with the consistent social fund expenditure. 3. Administration percentage has been rounded to nearest whole percentage.

Council Tax Bands

David Laws: To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what proportion of poor households live in homes in each of the council tax bands A to H; and if he will make a statement.

James Plaskitt: The information requested is in the table.
	
		
			  Proportion of households with incomes less than 60 per cent. of median by their council tax bands, Great Britain, 2004-05 
			  Council tax band  Before housing costs  After housing costs 
			 A 36 37 
			 B 20 20 
			 C 19 19 
			 D 13 12 
			 E 7 6 
			 F 3 3 
			 G 2 2 
			 H 0 0 
			 Other(1) 1 2 
			 (1) Households not valued separately and not allocated a council tax band.  Notes: 1. The commonly used definition for the threshold of relative low income (below 60 per cent. of contemporary median income) has been used in this table. 2. Figures may not sum to 100 due to rounding.  Source: Family Resources Survey 2004-05

Child Support Agency

David Laws: To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what the total is of uncollectable Child Support Agency arrears, broken down by uncollectable due to  (a) death,  (b) move abroad,  (c) unknown address,  (d) incorrect maintenance assessment and  (e) other causes; and if he will make a statement.

James Plaskitt: The administration of the Child Support Agency is a matter for the Chief Executive. He will write to the hon. Member with the information requested.
	 Letter from Stephen Geraghty:
	In reply to your recent Parliamentary questions about the Child Support Agency, the Secretary of State promised a substantive reply from the Chief Executive.
	You asked the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, what the total is of uncollectable Child Support Agency arrears broken down by uncollectable due to (a) death (b) move abroad (c) unknown addresses (d) incorrect maintenance assessment and (e) other causes; and if he will make a statement.
	The Agency is not able to provide a breakdown of uncollectable Child Support Agency arrears into the requested categories. However, following a debt analysis exercise in 2005/06, the Agency is now able to classify debt with greater clarity than in previous years.
	The attached tables provide the distribution of debt by type found by the debt analysis exercise. The exercise used a sample of cases on both computer systems, and had, in total, just over £130m of probably uncollectable debt, and just over £150m of possibly uncollectable debt. The Agency decides the sample size for its Debt Analysis Exercise according to robust statistical principles. This takes full account of the relative complexity of cases on each of the main systems so that the sample is statistically valid and is representative of the Agency's whole caseload.
	The amount of debt categorised as probably uncollectable in the Agency's Annual Report and Accounts for 2005/06 is £1.929 billion. This includes the value of suspended debt, which is classified as probably uncollectable for this exercise.
	The amount of debt categorised as possibly uncollectable in the Agency's Annual Report and Accounts for 2005/06 is £818 million, against which the provision below was made.
	Tables providing a breakdown of these amounts by type are attached.
	I hope this is helpful.
	
		
			  Agency's Debt Analysis sample exercise—Breakdown of Probably Uncollectable Provision 
			  Debt Type  Proportion (percentage)  Amount(£ million) 
			 Non Resident Parent Deceased Parent with Care Deceased Last Qualifying Child Deceased 1.54 29 
			 Reconciled (private case) Non Resident Parent terminally ill Non Resident Parent permanently abroad Non Resident Parent in receipt of State Pension 18.0 347 
			 Unable to trace Non Resident Parent for more than 5 years 26.2 505 
			 Benefit case with no enforced deductions in place 23.2 447 
			 Non Resident Parent self employed—nil compliant 31.2 601 
			 Total 100 1,929 
		
	
	
		
			  Agency's Debt Analysis sample exercise—Breakdown of Possibly Uncollectable Provision 
			  Debt Type  Proportion (percentage)  Amount (£ million) 
			 Unemployed student Reconciled cases 1.8 15 
			 NRP address unknown 15.2 124 
			 Unable to trace NRP for between 1 and 5 years 36.7 300 
			 NRP on benefit, enforced deductions not in place 3.0 25 
			 Nil compliant employed or employment status unknown 30.2 247 
			 Self employed NRP, nil compliant 9.4 77 
			 Self employed NRP, partially compliant 1.1 9 
			 Case at Enforcement Directorate for more than 1 year 2.6 21 
			 Total 100 818 
			  Notes: 1. Amounts rounded to nearest £ million 2. Percentages rounded to one decimal place 3. The proportions are based on a sample of cases 4. The amounts of debt are robust estimates calculated by applying these proportions to the full, categorised amounts of uncollectable debt

Departmental Staff

Vincent Cable: To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many staff were employed through employment agencies in  (a) his Department and  (b) each of its agencies in each of the last five years for which information is available; and what the (i) average and (ii) longest time was for which these temporary workers were employed in each year.

Anne McGuire: Historic information on the number of staff employed through employment agencies and for how long is not available. However a recent estimate indicates the Department currently has around 120 agency staff undertaking administrative and related work with an average contract length of just over four months.
	The estimated number of agency workers represents around 0.1 per cent. of total departmental staffing.

Departmental Staff

John McDonnell: To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what the reduction in the number of civil servants in his Department and each of its agencies has been in each year since 2004-05, broken down by region.

Anne McGuire: holding answer 18 December 2007
	The reduction in the number of civil servants in the Department of Work and Pensions and its agencies from 1 March 2004 (the start of the Department's efficiency challenge) to 31 March 2005 is shown in Table 1.
	The reduction in staffing from 1 April 2005 to 31 March 2006 is shown in Table 2.
	
		
			  Table 1: Reductions in Staffing from 1 March 2004 to 31 March 2005 
			   Jobcentre Plus  The Pension Service  Child Support Agency  Disability and Carers Service  The Rent Service  Appeals Service  Other Departmental Units 
			 East Midlands -390 -383 -36 1 n/a -3 70 
			 East of England -391 -250 -15 0 — 0 -31 
			 London -1,258 -98 -4 -39 — -19 49 
			 North East -468 -325 -171 -17 — -5 -208 
			 North West -1,198 -544 -227 -486 — -30 -21 
			 Scotland -1,103 -380 -147 -29 — 5 334 
			 South East -746 -120 -178 0 — 1 -21 
			 South West -363 -443 98 -4 — -7 -26 
			 Wales -463 -212 -34 -17 — 1 133 
			 West Midlands -667 -285 -169 -50 — -11 110 
			 Yorkshire and The Humber -546 -431 -60 -8 — -17 107 
			 Total -7,592 -3,471 -943 -648 n/a -86 496 
			  Note: The Rent Service joined DWP on 01 April 2004 Figures are full time equivalent (rounded) 
		
	
	
		
			  Table 2: Reductions in Staffing from 1 April 2005 to 31 March 2006 
			   Jobcentre Plus  The Pension Service  Child Support Agency  Disability and Carers Service  The Rent Service  Appeals Service  Other Departmental Units 
			 East Midlands 19 -372 18 -10 1 8 29 
			 East of England -32 -653 209 0 2 0 -32 
			 London -950 -12 2 -261 -16 3 -108 
			 North East -152 -506 134 5 -3 -4 97 
			 North West -377 44 181 69 -14 -9 -484 
			 Scotland -235 -194 230 4 0 -4 -362 
			 South East -552 -68 -50 0 -5 0 -6 
			 South West -148 -97 222 -13 -9 1 -38 
			 Wales 22 -353 11 -7 0 -2 -55 
			 West Midlands -139 -254 34 -20 -5 0 -2 
			 Yorkshire and The Humber -550 -106 58 8 -4 1 -240 
			 Total -3,253 -2,573 1049 -216 -52 -5 -1,201 
			  Note: Figures are full time equivalent (rounded)

Human Trafficking

Tim Farron: To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what recent discussions he has had with EU partners on the Council of Europe Convention on Action against Trafficking.

James Plaskitt: No discussions have taken place between myself and any of our EU partners in regard of Trafficking, as this is the responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary.